It would be inaccurate to claim that either Apple or Epic Games has decided their sharp and long-term legal dispute over the use of external payment links in iPhone apps: Courts have been sitting with both companies at different times and in different aspects of the case. But Epic seems to be better off of things after a judge angry at the end of April that Apple should allow such links and called its previous response “Insubordination.”
It sounds crucial and is a potential financial hammer blasting: Apple earns a lot of money from transactions in iOS apps, and its cut can be shrinking. But the question is still of what is happening to Fortnite, the game that triggered the dispute back in 2020. Epic believes it should be allowed back in the App Store because it was prohibited for something that must now be allowed, but Apple believes it was within its rights to ban the game during the rules at that time and not even consider a refund before all trials are over.
Whether Apple is wise To behave in this way can be discussed. Refusing to let Fortnite return damage iPhone owners as much as it hurts Epic, and it feels like little retaliation. But whether it is legally Rally is another matter – one that Epic decided to test by asking the judge in the case to force Apple’s hand and argue that the company is contempt for that April decision. And the judge has now reacted … pretty ominous.
“The court receives Epic Games, Inc.’s proposal to enforce the injunction,” Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers writes in a document shared by Epic CEO Tim Sweeney. “The court thus issues this order to show reason why the proposal should not be awarded. Briefing […] must include the legal authority that Apple claims it can ignore the order of this court, which has not received a residence from the ninth circuit law, even though its request was filed twelve days ago, May 7, 2025. “
Not the most promising start for Apple, which is instructed to explain why it has not complied with the order despite having received no encouragement from the appeal. But it gets worse:
“Obviously, Apple is fully capable of resolving this question without further orientation or consultation. But if the parties do not submit a joint message that this question has been resolved and this court’s intervention is required, the Apple official who is personally responsible for ensuring that compliance should personally appear during the hearing hereby set until Tuesday, May 27.”
It is not clear who the “official who is personally responsible for ensuring compliance” would be. Macrumors speculates that it could be a performer as senior as Phil Schiller who is in charge of the App Store, but Apple can try to get away with someone with a lower profile. But it seems that individual sanctions rather than or as well as slightly ignored business fines can be in the cards if the company pushes its luck much longer. And it may be worth pointing out that although it is obviously an extreme option in this case, contempt for court can be punished by prison time.
This does not mean that Apple would necessarily lose on May 27 hearing. One of the remedies given in 2021’s original judgment (see page 179, section g) of the same judge was “a statement that (i) Apple’s termination of DPLA [Developer Product Licensing Agreement] And the related agreements between epic games and Apple were valid, legal and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to end its DPLA with one or all Epic Games ‘wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliated companies and/or other devices under Epic Games’ control at all times and at Apple’s only estimate. None of the decisions since then suggest a change in the judge’s attitude about whether Apple is allowed to start businesses from the App Store when and when it wants to.
The problem is that Apple specifically is not allowed to “ban” the use of external payment links. It can reject apps or prohibited developer accounts at its sole discretion. But if it rejects an app or prohibits a dev for no reason than its use of such links, does it make it a de facto ban? Again, it can be discussed.
If Apple can come up with another reason for Fortnite’s exclusion, it may be okay and it may be useful for the company that the company approved updates to other high-profile apps such as Spotify and Patreon adding the links. But if it can’t, the sanctions could be serious. The effort was equally higher.